Labour Injunctions & Cease and Desist Orders in Ontario

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[6] obeyed police orders to allow vehicles to enter the company’s premises when the police were called the requirement under section 102(3) that efforts to obtain police assistance be unsuccessful had not been satisfied. The Ontario Court of Appeal did not accept the union’s argument and dismissed the appeal. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal clarified the purpose of section 102(3). It stated: “The question posed by s. 102(3) is whether in all the circumstances reasonable efforts to obtain police assistance have failed to result in an acceptable degree of control of the situation.” 14 The Court of Appeal also outlined what an applicant must prove under section 102(3) as follows: the section places an onus on the applicant to satisfy the court that the applicant has made reasonable efforts to obtain police assistance and that those efforts have not resulted in an acceptable degree of control in light of the factors set out in the section: the risks of property damage, personal injury or obstruction of lawful access to the premises. 15 With respect to the established pattern of picketing whereby picketers blocked vehicles from entering and exiting the premises, the Court of Appeal found that the employer had established that reasonable efforts to obtain police assistance had failed to result in an acceptable degree of control as required under section 102(3). Section 102(3) does not contemplate that an employer should have access to its premises blocked every day until the police arrive nor does it purport to assess the success of police assistance in preventing obstruction only after the police have arrived at the premises in question. However, it should be noted that even though the Court of Appeal upheld the injunction, in doing so, it commented that injunctions should be used sparingly in a labour relations context. 14 Industrial Hardwood, supra note 12 at para 23. 15 Ibid. at para 22.
[7] The Court of Appeal specifically noted that the regulation of picketing during a labour dispute must be done with care, balance and sophistication. To this end, the Court of Appeal went on to say: Strikes and the picket lines that go with them are evolving human dramas where risks of property damage, personal injury or obstruction of lawful entry are best controlled by flexible and even-handed policing. Only where this fails should the court, with its blunt instrument of the injunction, be resorted to. 16 It is worthy of noting that although the Court of Appeal in Industrial Hardwood upheld the injunction issued by the lower court, the Court of Appeal did modify one aspect of the injunction - the restriction on the number of picketers was removed. The Court of Appeal removed the restriction because it found that the number of picketers is an expression of solidarity and consequently, an important component of the expressive aspect of picketing. Removing the limitation on the number of picketers reflected the court’s view that where injunctions are issued “they ought generally to go no further than necessary to prevent a recurrence of the demonstrated harm.” 17 Similarly, Cancoil involved a lawful strike in which employees picketed the entrance to the company’s premises. The picketers detained each person who attempted to cross the picket line for at least fifteen minutes and if a vehicle had several occupants the fifteen minute delay was multiplied by the number of occupants. The employer responded by imposing a staggered entry schedule but this caused significant inconvenience to some of its employees. The employer also contacted the police but was informed that the police would not intervene in a labour dispute unless there was a risk to public safety or the commission of a criminal offence. The employer 16 Industrial Hardwood, supra note 12 at para 16. 17 Ibid. at para 38.
Page 1 and 2: [1] Labour Injunctions & Cease and
Page 3 and 4: [3] It is through free expression t
Page 5: [5] Section 102(3) then provides th
Page 9 and 10: [9] Therefore, while section 102(3)
Page 11 and 12: [11] approach is evident in the cou
Page 13 and 14: [13] leaving the employer’s facil
Page 15 and 16: [15] The declarations, directions a
Page 17 and 18: [17] SCC in a Canada Labour Code ca
Page 19: [19] 102(3) of the Courts of Justic

Labour Injunctions & Cease and Desist Orders in Ontario

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?